System and method of removing duplicate leads

ABSTRACT

A duplicate lead removal system comprises a matching engine, a vendor duplicates database, and a conflict engine. The matching engine is configured to determine at least one vendor to receive a lead. The vendor duplicates database is configured to store duplicate lead information that is at least partly created by and received from vendors outside of the duplicate lead removal system. The conflict engine is configured to compare information that is at least derived from the lead with information stored in the vendor duplicates database in order to determine if the lead is a duplicate lead for the vendor such that the system can prevent transmission of duplicate leads to the vendor.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/564,165, entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD OF REMOVING DUPLICATE LEADS,which was filed on Nov. 28, 2006 and is pending. The disclosure of U.S.patent application Ser. No. 11/564,165 is hereby incorporated byreference into this application.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

Embodiments of the systems and methods described herein relate toremoving duplicate consumer leads.

2. Description of the Related Art

Consumer lead generation is a large and growing industry. The leadgeneration industry identifies individual or business consumers that maybe interested in buying products or services and sells contactinformation for those consumers to providers of the products orservices. For example, a residential loan lead generation company, suchas LowerMyBills.com, identifies consumers interested in getting aresidential loan and sells the consumers' contact information to lendersof residential loans. The contact information of the potentiallyinterested buyer is known as a “lead.”

Lead generation companies sell leads for many products and services,including residential loans, commercial loans, real estate agents,automobiles, attorneys, housecleaners, and many other products andservices. Providers of such products and services buy leads becauseleads effectively identify consumers that are already interested in theproviders' products and services. Accordingly, leads often result inmore sales than advertising, cold calling, or other forms ofsalesmanship.

Because of the effectiveness of leads, some product and serviceproviders periodically buy leads, or generate their own leads, frommultiple sources. Unfortunately, such product and service providers mayget duplicate leads, thus depriving the providers of the full value ofeach lead. Duplicate leads also hurt lead generation companies becausethe companies must generally either refund the purchase price ofduplicate leads or discount the price of all leads to account forduplicate leads.

SUMMARY

In this application we describe embodiments of systems and methods thatidentify and remove duplicate leads before they are provided to a leadbuyer. These systems and methods increase the value of each lead. Leadgeneration companies benefit because they can sell each lead at a higherprice. Lead buyers benefit because they receive fewer duplicate leads,thereby reducing the lost value of duplicate leads and the burden ofdetecting duplicate leads.

One duplicate lead removal system comprises a database of duplicateleads and a conflict engine configured to detect and remove duplicateleads. In this embodiment, the conflict engine compares leads, fromwhatever source obtained, with information about leads already receivedthat is stored in the duplicate lead database. The system can thenprovide a group of leads to a vendor that excludes the leads alreadyreceived. In this fashion, the system reduces the chance that the vendorwill receive duplicate leads.

A lead may be a duplicate lead for one vendor but may not be a duplicatelead for another vendor. Accordingly, the duplicate lead databasepreferably identifies duplicate leads on a vendor-by-vendor basis. Inone embodiment, a separate duplicate lead database exists for eachvendor. For example, one duplicate lead database may include the leadsalready received by ABC Mortgage Company and a separate duplicate leaddatabase may include the leads already received by Specialty Financing.Alternatively, the system may use a single duplicate lead database thatincludes records designating which vendor or vendors have alreadyreceived a particular lead.

In one variation, the system periodically receives updates to theduplicate lead database. In one advantageous variation, the vendorsprovide the system with information about the leads that the vendorsalready have. For example, each vendor may create a duplicate lead filethat the system periodically downloads and uses to update the duplicatelead database. Alternatively, vendors may transmit duplicate leadinformation to the system in real time so that the system can update theduplicate lead database immediately. Alternatively, the vendors maymaintain duplicate lead databases that the system may query in real timejust prior to transmitting leads to vendors. These methods of updatingthe duplicate lead database (or of querying vendor-maintained databases)allow each vendor, rather than the system, to define the vendor's set ofduplicate leads, advantageously causing the system to exclude duplicateleads generated by the vendor itself or otherwise obtained from a sourcenot affiliated with the system. In contrast, other mechanisms forremoving duplicate leads, such as excluding leads that the systempreviously sent to the vendor, may not detect and remove duplicate leadsgenerated outside of the system.

Optionally, the systems and methods allow each vendor to define thevendor's set of duplicate leads without requiring the vendor to disclosecomplete consumer contact information associated with each lead. In oneembodiment, the duplicate lead database stores only a portion of thecontact information of each lead, such as, for example, the lead's zipcode and a limited number of positions in the lead's street address.Advantageously, the amount of information stored, while not enough toreveal the full contact information, is preferably enough to determinewhether the lead is a duplicate.

Not requiring the vendor to disclose complete consumer contactinformation is advantageous in at least three ways. First, it requiresfewer computational and storage resources because less information mustbe transmitted and stored. Second, it increases the vendor's trust inthe duplicate lead removal system because the system does not receiveenough contact information to resell the vendor's leads to anothervendor. Third, it reduces or eliminates consumer privacy concernsbecause the limited amount of information that is transmitted isunlikely to result in the disclosure of sensitive information.

Herein we describe examples or embodiments of systems and methods toremove duplicate leads such that a skilled artisan will understand a fewdifferent ways to make and use the invention. However, the invention isnot limited to just the described embodiments. Rather, the inventionencompasses each disclosed embodiment individually, any combination orsubset of the disclosed embodiments, and any variation of the disclosedembodiments that is appreciated by a skilled artisan in light of thisdisclosure. For example, while we describe many advantageous featuresand components, a skilled artisan will appreciate, in light of thisdisclosure, that these features and components are not necessary partsof every embodiment, but can be omitted from or changed in someembodiments.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram that illustrates one implementation of aduplicate lead removal system connected to a network.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart that illustrates one process of periodicallyupdating the vendor duplicates database.

FIG. 3 is a simplified vendor lead file that illustrates one format forthe data file records and the database records.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart that illustrates one process of removing duplicateleads.

FIG. 5 is a flowchart that illustrates another process of removingduplicate leads.

FIG. 6 is an example that illustrates one way that a conflict engine mayremove duplicate leads and other conflicts.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram that illustrates one implementation of aduplicate lead removal system connected to a network. The duplicate leadremoval system 100 of FIG. 1, and the embodiments of other figures, maybe implemented in the context of a loan lead generation system such asthe system embodied at the web site www.lowermybills.com. We offer thiscontext to illustrate one concrete application of the duplicate leadremoval system 100 in order to help a skilled artisan understand how theduplicate lead removal system 100 may be used in practice. Theinvention, however, is not limited to removing duplicate leads for thelending industry. Rather, a skilled artisan will appreciate, in light ofthis disclosure, that the systems and methods described herein can beused to remove any kind of duplicate leads, including, withoutlimitation, leads for residential loans, commercial loans, real estateagents, automobiles, attorneys, housecleaners, or any other product orservice. The term “vendor” refers broadly to any potential lead buyer,of whatever industry, that offers one or more products or services.

To further illustrate a concrete application of the duplicate leadremoval system 100, we describe the duplicate lead removal system 100 inthe context of a lead generation system that generates leads using theInternet. An example of such a lead generation system is found on theweb site located at www.lowermybills.com. This site prompts a consumerinterested in obtaining a loan to enter his own contact information intoa web-based form and sends the contact information to a group of matchedlenders selected by the consumer.

In one embodiment, components of an Internet-based lead generationsystem include a matching engine 115, a vendor criteria database 120, avendor criteria entry component 125, and a web server 130. In general,the lead generation system generates a lead when a consumer 140 accessesthe web server 130 over a network 135 such as the Internet. The webserver 130 serves web pages that prompt the consumer 140 to enter hiscontact information into a web-based form. The consumer 140 may also beprompted to enter other information to assist the system to match theconsumer 140 with vendors that offer the products or services that theconsumer 140 wants.

Generally, the vendor criteria database 120 includes criteria thatdefine characteristics of consumers with whom each vendor wants to bematched. In the context of lending, a lender's criteria may specify thatthe lender wants to be matched with consumers that have excellent creditand that seek a home purchase loan for more than $300,000. In thecontext of selling cars, a car dealer's criteria may specify that thedealer wants to be matched with consumers that want to buy a new Hondacar with a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price of at least $15,000.Generally, the matching engine 115 compares characteristics of theconsumer 140 with the vendor criteria database 120 to match the consumer140 with one or more vendors. In some cases the consumer 140 may notmeet any vendor's criteria and the matching engine 115 may not make amatch.

Generally, the vendor criteria entry component 125 comprisescomputer-executable instructions stored on a computer-readable mediumthat are configured, when executed by a general-purpose computer, toallow a user to update the vendor criteria database 120. Alternatively,the vendor criteria entry component 125 may be implemented as a hardwarecomponent, a firmware component, or a component that is some combinationof hardware, firmware, and software, that performs the equivalentfunction. A skilled artisan will understand that hardware, firmware,software, or combination implementations are equivalent, and willunderstand how to make and use any of these implementations. The term“vendor criteria entry component” encompasses all of theseimplementations. In one embodiment, the vendor criteria entry component125 is accessible to a plurality of vendors 145, 150, and 155 over anetwork 160, such that the vendors 145, 150, and 155 can directly updatetheir own criteria. Alternatively, the vendor criteria entry component125 is not accessible to the vendors 145, 150, and 155, such that aperson or automated process affiliated with the lead generation systemmust update the vendor criteria database 120. The network 160 may or maynot be the same network as the network 135.

Generally, the matching engine 115 comprises computer-executableinstructions stored on a computer-readable medium that are configured,when executed by a general-purpose computer, to match the consumer 140to one or more vendors based on vendor criteria and characteristics ofthe consumer 140. Alternatively, the matching engine 115 may beimplemented as a hardware component, a firmware component, or acomponent that is some combination of hardware, firmware, and software,that performs the equivalent function. A skilled artisan will understandthat hardware, firmware, software, or combination implementations areequivalent, and will understand how to make and use any of theseimplementations. The term “matching engine” encompasses all of theseimplementations.

In one embodiment, the matching engine 115 matches the consumer 140 withvendors by comparing characteristics of the consumer 140 with vendorcriteria stored in the vendor criteria database 120. The matching engine115 may require an exact match (e.g. the consumer 140 meets all of avendor's criteria) or the matching engine 115 may make matches that areclose but not exact (e.g. the consumer 140 meets an acceptable level ofthe vendor's criteria). In some cases the matching engine 115 may matchthe consumer 140 with only one vendor, while in others the matchingengine 115 may match the consumer 140 with multiple vendors. Anadvantage of matching with just one vendor is that the vendor gets anexclusive lead that likely has more value than a lead that the vendorshares with other vendors. An advantage of matching with multiplevendors is that the vendors may compete with each other to win theconsumer's business, which may result in a better price for theconsumer. In some cases, the matching engine 115 may not be able to makeany matches because the consumer 140 may have characteristics that donot match any vendor's criteria.

The consumer 140 characteristics may be collected in many ways. One wayto collect the consumer 140 characteristics is to have the consumer 140fill out a web-based form served by the web server 130. The consumer 140may be asked, for example, to provide his contact information andinformation about his creditworthiness, job, income, interests, and thelike. In some cases the consumer 140 may be asked to estimate some ofthese characteristics rather than provide an exact value. A skilledartisan will appreciate, in light of this disclosure, that thecharacteristics requested differ on the type of lead that is beinggenerated and the type of information that vendors care about forqualifying a consumer as a potential buyer. Thus, in the context ofmortgage loans, creditworthiness is an important characteristic.However, in the context of a product such as a computer that theconsumer 140 will likely purchase using cash or a credit card,creditworthiness is less important.

Another way to collect the consumer 140 characteristics is to look upinformation about the consumer 140 stored in a database. An example ofthis approach is to request a credit report for the consumer 140 afterobtaining the Social Security number from the consumer 140. Still otherways to collect consumer 140 characteristics exist outside of thecontext of web-based lead generation systems. For example, the consumer140 can be asked to fill out a paper form or to answer questions duringa face-to-face or telephone survey or interview.

A web-based lead generation system, such as the example described above,is a preferred way to collect leads for sending to vendors. However,while we describe embodiments of a duplicate lead removal system 100 inthe context of such a web-based lead generation system, the duplicatelead removal system 100 can be used to remove duplicate leads generatedin other ways, including leads generated from paper forms or fromface-to-face or telephone surveys or interviews. It is advantageous touse a computerized method of generating leads because such leads willalready be stored in electronic form and can easily be compared to thevendor duplicates database 110 described herein. However, non-electronicleads can be manually or automatically converted (such as by opticalcharacter recognition or the like) into electronic form so that theduplicate lead removal system 100 can be used with them.

The illustrated duplicate lead removal system 100 comprises a conflictengine 105 and a vendor duplicates database 110. The vendor duplicatesdatabase 110 comprises information about leads that a vendor has alreadyreceived. Preferably, the information stored in the vendor duplicatesdatabase 110 stores enough information about each lead to determine, toan acceptable degree of accuracy, whether another lead is a duplicate.The acceptable degree of accuracy need not be 100%, and the vendorduplicates database 110 need not store complete contact information foreach lead. For example, in one embodiment, the vendor duplicatesdatabase 110 stores, for each lead, a zip code and the first eightpositions of a street address. This information is sufficient toaccurately determine whether a lead has the same address as another leadfor almost all addresses in the United States, without requiring thestorage of complete contact information for each lead. The zip code pluseight positions of street address format is not required; a skilledartisan will appreciate that many other formats may be used.

The term “database,” as used with respect to the vendor duplicatesdatabase 110 and the vendor criteria database 120, encompasses any groupof data that stores information about duplicate leads or vendorcriteria. These databases need not require Structured Query Language(“SQL”), a relational database management system, or any other querylanguage or database management system, for accessing the informationstored therein. Moreover, these databases are not limited to anyparticular format. Rather, these databases may be simple text files thathave an entry on each line or multiple entries on a single lineseparated by commas, tabs, semicolons, or the like. Alternatively, thesedatabases may comprise all or portions of many computer files stored inone or more directories or folders.

In one embodiment, the conflict engine 105 comprises computer-executableinstructions stored on a computer-readable medium that are configured,when executed by a general-purpose computer, to determine whether a leadis a duplicate lead. Alternatively, the conflict engine 105 may beimplemented as a hardware component, a firmware component, or acomponent that is some combination of hardware, firmware, and software,that performs the equivalent function. A skilled artisan will understandthat hardware, firmware, software, or combination implementations areequivalent, and will understand how to make and use any of theseimplementations. The term “conflict engine” encompasses all of theseimplementations.

An implementation of the conflict engine 105 determines whether a leadis a duplicate lead by extracting from the lead the fields ofinformation stored in the vendor duplicates database 110 and comparingthe extracted information with the vendor duplicates database 110 todetermine if any record matches the extracted information. For theimplementation in which the vendor duplicates database 110 stores a zipcode and the first eight positions of a street address for each record,the extracted information is a zip code and the first eight positions ofa street address. (The term “record,” as used herein, is not strictlyconfined to any particular structure and encompasses, for example, anentry in a text file.) If any record matches the extracted information,the lead is deemed to be a duplicate. In one variation, the extractedinformation must exactly match a record for the lead to be deemed to bea duplicate. In other variations, the match need not be exact but mustbe within a desired degree of accuracy. Determining matches based ononly part of the contact information stored in a lead advantageouslyincreases the accuracy of the matching process. For example, determiningmatches based just on a zip code and the first eight positions of astreet address reduces the chance that typing errors or variations inspelling or punctuation may prevent an otherwise identical address frombeing deemed a duplicate.

One advantageous variant of the duplicate lead removal system 100 runsthe conflict engine 105 in real-time just before sending leads tomatched vendors. In this variant, the matching engine 115 matches theconsumer 140 with a number of vendors. The conflict engine 105 thencompares the lead with the vendor duplicates database 110 to determineif any of the matched vendors already have the lead. The conflict engine105 excludes the lead as a duplicate lead for any vendor that alreadyhas the lead, such that the system 100 can send the lead only to thosevendors that do not already have the lead. Real-time duplicate leadremoval helps both consumers and vendors. Consumers benefit because theyare matched with vendors that do not already have the lead and thus aremore likely to contact the consumer. Vendors benefit because theyreceive leads that are less likely to be duplicates, thus reducing thecost and effort of detecting duplicate leads and the loss of valueresulting from duplicate leads.

An advantageous variant of the duplicate lead removal system 100periodically updates the vendor duplicates database 110 to reflect theleads that each vendor has received within a certain period of time. Inone embodiment, the system 100 stores leads in the vendor duplicatesdatabase 110 for 60 days. Alternatively, the system 100 may store leadsin the vendor duplicates database 110 for 90 days or any otherreasonable period. The time period is preferably set to distinguish trueduplicate leads from legitimate repeat consumers. A true duplicate leadoccurs when a consumer seeks a product or service during a single periodbut the lead is generated by more than one source. A legitimate repeatconsumer is one that completes a transaction, waits for a period, anddecides to enter into another transaction. As will be appreciated by askilled artisan, the “reasonable” period for distinguishing trueduplicates from legitimate repeat consumers may differ based on the typeof product or service that the consumer seeks.

In various alternative embodiments, a vendor may maintain a vendorduplicates database 158 in addition to or in place of the system'svendor duplicates database 110. In such embodiments, the system 100 mayquery the vendor's vendor duplicates database 158 in real time at thetime that a lead is being generated. If the system 100 determines, basedon the query of the vendor's vendor duplicates database 158, that thelead is a duplicate lead, the system 100 does not transmit the lead tothat vendor. Advantageously, such an approach ensures that the system100 accesses the latest duplicate lead information maintained by thevendor without requiring the system 100 to periodically update its ownvendor duplicates database 110. Alternatively, the system 100 canmaintain a vendor duplicates database 110 that is updated in real timewhen changes occur in the vendors vendor duplicates database 158. Forexample, the system's vendor duplicates database 110 and the vendor'svendor duplicates database 158 may be linked together via Open DatabaseConnectivity (“ODBC”) or via any other mechanism for linking databasestogether. A skilled artisan will appreciate, in light of thisdisclosure, that there are many mechanisms for linking databasestogether and that any such mechanism can be used.

We have described embodiments of the system 100 that remove duplicateleads based on vendor duplicates provided by vendors. Alternatively oradditionally, the system 100 can remove duplicate leads based on leadsthat the system 100 has already sent to the vendor. In such anembodiment, the system 100 includes a vendor leads database (not shown)that stores information about the leads that the system 100 has alreadysent to each vendor. Upon matching a lead to a particular vendor, thesystem 100 may check the vendor leads database to determine whether thelead has already been sent to that vendor. If the lead has already beensent to that vendor, the system 100 does not transmit the lead to thevendor.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart that illustrates one process of periodicallyupdating the vendor duplicates database 110. A process 200 forperiodically updating the vendor duplicates database 110 begins in ablock 205 with a vendor loading a daily delta file onto a File TransferProtocol (“FTP”) site. The daily delta file includes new duplicate leadsthat the vendor has received since the previous day. The delta files canbe updated more or less frequently, such as hourly, every four hours,every two days, weekly, or any other length of time. Further, they neednot be stored on an FTP site. Rather, any transmission protocol can beused. In a block 210, the process 200 checks the FTP site. In a decisionblock 215, the process 200 determines if a data file exists on the FTPsite. If a file does not exist, an email is sent in a block 220 tonotify the vendor that the file is missing. Notification is not requiredand, if performed, other forms of notification may be used. If a fileexists at the FTP site, the process 200 proceeds, in a block 225 todownload the data file.

In a block 230, the process 200 performs an SQL load of each record fromthe data file. SQL load is not required; any other method for loadingdata can be used. In a decision block 235, the process 200 determineswhether the record's matchkey already exists in the vendor duplicatesdatabase 110. As indicated above, in one embodiment a record matchkeycomprises a zip code and the first eight positions of a street address.If the record matchkey does not already exist, the record is added tothe vendor duplicates database 110. If the record matchkey alreadyexists, the process 200 proceeds to a decision block 245, in which it isdetermined whether the drop date in the database record is later thanthe drop date in the data file record. The purpose of the drop date isto make sure that duplicate leads are stored in the vendor duplicatesdatabase 110 for a reasonable period of time. Periodically, the system100 purges any records in the vendor duplicates database 110 whose dropdates have passed. If the database drop date is not later than the datafile drop date, the process 200 proceeds, in a block 250, to overwritethe database record with the data file record. If the database drop dateis later than the data file drop date, the process 200 keeps thedatabase record (and thus ignores the data file record). In either case,the process 200 proceeds to process the next data file record, beginningat the block 230.

FIG. 3 is a simplified vendor lead file that illustrates one format forthe data file records and the database records discussed above. Theformats of the data file records and the database records need not bethe same, although the records preferably store the same information foreasy comparison and determination of duplicates. It is advantageous, butnot required, to have the matchkey fields have the same format so thatconversion is not required before comparison of the database filerecords with the database records. As illustrated, a vendor lead file300 may include a number of entries 305. Each entry 305 may comprise azip code 310, 8 positions of a street address 315, and a drop date 320.The vendor lead file 300 may be a text file or a file of any otherformat. The entries 305 may be on separate lines or may be separated bycommas, semicolons, tabs, or the like.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart that illustrates one process of removing duplicateleads. A process 400 of removing duplicate leads begins in a block 405,in which the process 400 receives a vendor duplicate file. A skilledartisan will appreciate, in light of this disclosure, that the receiptof a vendor duplicate file may occur substantially before the othersteps in the process 400. Indeed, receiving a vendor duplicate file isnot necessary in cases where a vendor duplicates database has alreadybeen created. In a block 410, the process 400 finds a matching vendor towhom a lead may be sent. In a block 415, the process 400 checks thevendor's duplicates database to determine if the lead is a duplicatelead. In a block 420, the process 400 excludes the matching vendor ifthe lead is a duplicate lead, such that the lead is not sent to thematching vendor.

FIG. 5 is a flowchart that illustrates another process of removingduplicate leads. A process 500 of removing duplicate leads begins in ablock 505, in which the process 500 generates a list of matching vendorsto whom a lead may be sent. In a block 510, the process 500 checks oneor more vendor duplicates databases to determine if the lead is aduplicate lead for any of the vendors. In a block 515, the process 500excludes vendors for whom the lead is a duplicate lead, such that thelead is not sent to the excluded vendors. In a block 520, the process500 optionally receives a consumer selection of some of the non-excludedvendors. In a block 525, the process 500 transmits the lead to thematched and/or selected vendors (who have not been excluded).

Neither the system 100, the process 400, nor the process 500 requiresduplicate lead removal for every vendor that receives leads from thesystem 100. Some vendors may choose not to provide lead duplicateinformation with which to build or update the vendor duplicates database110. In addition, vendors are not required to send all of their leads tothe system, and some vendors may choose to provide only some of theirleads. Advantageously, therefore, the vendor is able to control whichleads are part of the duplicate lead removal process. Further, a leadgeneration company may choose to provide duplicate lead removal only forcertain vendors, such as, for example, vendors that buy a large volumeof leads from the lead generation company. Accordingly, while it ispreferable to perform a duplicate lead removal process for every leadand every vendor, this is not required. Rather, the embodimentsdescribed herein can perform the duplicate lead removal process only forsome vendors or only for some leads with respect to some vendors.

The process 400 and the process 500, and any other process set forthherein or apparent to a skilled artisan in light of this disclosure, canbe embodied in computer-executable instructions stored on acomputer-readable medium, such that the processes are performed when thecomputer-executable instructions are executed by a general purposecomputer. Alternatively, the processes may be embodied in hardwarecomponents, firmware components, or components that are some combinationof hardware, firmware, and software, that perform the equivalentfunctions. A skilled artisan will understand that hardware, firmware,software, or combination embodiments are equivalent, and will understandhow to make and use any of these embodiments.

FIG. 6 is an example that illustrates one way that the conflict engine105 may remove duplicate leads and other conflicts. As explained above,the conflict engine 105 may detect and remove duplicate leads. In oneembodiment of the duplicate lead removal system 100, the detection andremoval of duplicate leads is a specific case of a more general processof detecting and removing “conflicts” with particular leads. As usedherein, a “conflict” is simply an undesirable circumstance under which aparticular vendor should not receive a particular lead. The duplicatelead removal system 100 seeks to avoid conflicts by detecting them andpreventing the particular vendor from receiving the particular lead.

A duplicate lead is one example of a conflict because a vendor shouldnot receive leads that it already has. Another example of a conflict iswhen two vendors who are really a part of the same organization (such asparent and subsidiary companies) are both matched with the sameconsumer. It is generally undesirable to send a lead to multiple partsof the same organization because this either creates undesirablecompetition within the organization or gives a false impression to theconsumer that more competition exists than actually does. The duplicatelead removal system 100 may seek to avoid other vendor businessconflicts as well.

In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the duplicate lead removalsystem 100 matches the consumer 140 with a number of vendors. In theillustrated example, in the context of the lending industry, the system100 has matched the consumer 140 with six lenders, including ABCMortgage Co., ACME Lending, FastLoans.com, XYZ Lending, Kassle FundingCorp., and Specialty Financing. Upon generating the initial list ofmatched vendors, the system 100 applies conflict rules to excludevendors that create a conflict. In one embodiment, each conflict rule isapplied in sequence to each vendor on the list before the next conflictrule is applied. Alternatively, each vendor is processed in turn (andall conflict checks are run for the vendor) to determine if there is anyconflict with that vendor. Processing each vendor in turn has theadvantage of allowing the system to end conflict testing early when adesired number of matched vendors are found that have no conflicts.However, the conflict rules can be applied in sequence in a manner thatminimizes duplicative computations. For example, the conflict rules canbe applied to only a subset of the matched vendors and further testingcan be ended if enough matched vendors are left after the conflicttesting.

In the illustrated example, the system 100 applies the conflict rules toeach of the matched vendors in turn. As shown, the system 100 determinesthat there is no conflict with the ABC Mortgage Co., so that company isnot excluded. The system 100 determines that ACME Lending does have aconflict because the lead is a duplicate lead for ACME Lending. Thus,the system 100 removes ACME Lending from the list. The system 100determines that there is no conflict with FastLoans.com, and thatcompany remains on the list. The system 100 determines that XYZ Lendinghas a conflict because XYZ Lending is a subsidiary of ABC Mortgage Co.,and the particular conflict rules for those companies require that onlyone lead be sent to the companies affiliated with ABC Mortgage Co. Thesystem 100 determines that there is no conflict with Kassle Funding Co.and Specialty Financing, and those companies remain on the list. Afterconflict testing completes, the system 100 has reduced the matchedvendor list to four lenders who may receive the lead.

In general, the systems and methods of removing duplicate leads that wehave described above are used to prevent vendors from receivingduplicate leads. Additionally, in one embodiment, the duplicate leadremoval system 100 may alert a vendor when a duplicate lead occurs. Insome cases it may be advantageous for a vendor who has already receiveda lead for a consumer to know that the consumer has been matched withother vendors. For example, if a consumer has signed up with a phonecompany but then seeks to be matched with other phone companies a monthlater, it may be advantageous for the first phone company to know thatthe consumer may be considering a switch to a different phone company.In such cases, being informed of a duplicate lead may allow the firstphone company to make an attempt to keep the consumer from switching toa different phone company.

We have described the foregoing embodiments by way of example and notlimitation. A skilled artisan will appreciate, in light of thisdisclosure, that the invention is not limited to the disclosedembodiments, but encompasses the disclosed embodiments individually,combinations of features of the disclosed embodiments, and variations ofthe disclosed embodiments that are apparent to a skilled artisan inlight of this disclosure. For example, a skilled artisan will appreciatethat many of the features described herein can be modified or omittedfrom certain embodiments without departing from the invention.

1. A duplicate consumer lead removal system comprising: at least onecomputer-readable medium configured to store data andcomputer-executable instructions; computer hardware comprising at leastone computer processor in communication with the computer-readablemedium and configured to access the data and computer-executableinstructions stored in the computer-readable medium and to cause thecomputer hardware to perform operations defined by thecomputer-executable instructions; a matching engine comprising aplurality of computer-executable instructions stored in thecomputer-readable medium and configured, when the instructions areexecuted by the computer processor, to cause the computer hardware tomatch a consumer lead with at least one matched vendor that is eligibleto receive the lead; an interface that is configured to access a vendorduplicates database that stores duplicate lead information for each of aplurality of vendors, wherein a duplicate lead is a lead that hasalready been received by a vendor, wherein the vendor duplicate leadinformation identifies duplicate leads that have already been receivedby a first vendor and separately identifies duplicate leads that havealready been received by a second vendor, and wherein the duplicate leadinformation is at least partly received from vendors outside of theduplicate lead removal system; and a conflict engine comprising aplurality of computer-executable instructions stored in thecomputer-readable medium and configured, when the instructions areexecuted by the computer processor, to cause the computer hardware tocompare information related to the lead with information accessed fromthe vendor duplicates database in order to determine if the lead is aduplicate lead for the matched vendor and to cause the system to nottransmit the lead to the matched vendor if the lead is a duplicate leadof the matched vendor and to transmit the lead to the matched vendor ifthe lead is not a duplicate lead of the matched vendor.
 2. The system ofclaim 1, wherein at least a portion of the duplicate lead informationstored in the vendor duplicates database relates to leads that vendorsoutside of the system generated or received from a lead generationentity different from the system.
 3. The system of claim 1, wherein thevendor duplicates database stores, for each duplicate lead, incompleteinformation that is insufficient to contact a consumer, and wherein theincomplete information includes at least a zip code and a portion of astreet address for each duplicate lead.
 4. The system of claim 3,wherein the vendor duplicates database stores, for each duplicate lead,incomplete information that is insufficient to contact a consumer, andwherein the incomplete information comprises at least a zip code and atleast eight positions of a street address for each duplicate lead. 5.The system of claim 1, wherein the vendor duplicates database storesenough information to identify duplicate leads to a desired degree ofaccuracy but not enough information to generate complete leads.
 6. Thesystem of claim 1, wherein the conflict engine is further configured todetect when a lead has been matched to multiple entities that are partsof a common organization and to cause the system to not transmit thelead to more than one of the multiple entities.
 7. The system of claim6, wherein the conflict engine detects when a lead has been matched toboth a parent entity and a subsidiary entity.
 8. A method of removingduplicate consumer leads comprising: accessing computer-executableinstructions stored in at least one computer-readable medium; andexecuting the computer-executable instructions on at least one computerprocessor, thereby causing computer hardware to perform operationscomprising: finding a matching vendor to receive a lead; checking avendor duplicates database to determine if the lead is a duplicate leadfor the matching vendor, wherein the vendor duplicates databasemaintains information indicative of leads that a first vendor hasalready received and separately indicative of leads that a second vendorhas already received; excluding the matching vendor from receiving thelead if the lead is a duplicate lead for the vendor; if the lead is nota duplicate lead for the matching vendor, transmitting the lead to thematching vendor and updating the vendor duplicates database to reflectthat the matching vendor has received the lead.
 9. The method of claim8, wherein finding a matching vendor comprises finding a vendor whosecriteria for receiving leads matches characteristics of the lead. 10.The method of claim 8, wherein checking the vendor duplicates databaseto determine if the lead is a duplicate lead for the vendor comprisescomparing information at least derived from the lead with matchkeysstored in the vendor duplicates database, the matchkeys comprisingenough information to detect duplicate leads but not enough informationto generate a complete lead.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein thematchkeys comprise at least a zip code and at least a portion of astreet address.